I have just read this article
Full article
I have added a poll asking if what the employer did was morally wrong.
Full article
I have added a poll asking if what the employer did was morally wrong.
Are they morally wrong?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Plecostomus
Commodore
Rotten to the core. They should be grateful the fire didn't spread in their direction.
^^^ I agree. The employers are scum.
Doubly so if they rely on any help from volunteers themselves as many Australian nursing homes do. For example, my mother used to do the fingernails of many old ladies at a nearby nursing home. If my Mum had been doing that at this nursing home she would have probably been so disgusted that she would have stopped going.
Doubly so if they rely on any help from volunteers themselves as many Australian nursing homes do. For example, my mother used to do the fingernails of many old ladies at a nearby nursing home. If my Mum had been doing that at this nursing home she would have probably been so disgusted that she would have stopped going.
Yep, that's pretty low.
I think they were wrong i remember reading a thread a while ago where some one said things like the fire service should be run by volunteers while i disagree with this i feel if certain places relies on volunteers there should be government rules save guarding jobs and wages.
Absolutely wrong-o.
A
Amaris
Guest
I believe it's wrong, and my thoughts are along the same lines as Markas.
J.
J.
I'm kind of torn on this one. I think that under normal circumstances I can see where they're coming from since it is a care facility. That being said, a disaster on the scale of those fires should count as a very bloody exceptional circumstance, especially when given the nature of the volunteer work. If she was fighting fires herself or coordinating the teams or doing an essential part of that work or some other skilled role, there should be no punishment. If the volunteer work was something that anyone else could have done off the street with no training then I side a bit more with the employer. Regardless she shouldn't be punished, and the unions/facility need to come to an understanding for future emergencies where volunteers are required.
On one hand I'd say it's not right for them to lay this on her for doing her duty as a volunteer worker... it's a problem that needed her to drop what she was doing and help out.
But at the same time... from a business perspective that's not their problem. They don't pay her to drop what she's doing and deal with her volunteer work. They pay her to do her job. Despite helping in a good cause - she stopped working to be a part of that cause.
If it were me I wouldn't raise much fuss about it. Especially as doing voluntary work, I wouldn't expect to be paid - I'd just be happy to help.
But at the same time... from a business perspective that's not their problem. They don't pay her to drop what she's doing and deal with her volunteer work. They pay her to do her job. Despite helping in a good cause - she stopped working to be a part of that cause.
If it were me I wouldn't raise much fuss about it. Especially as doing voluntary work, I wouldn't expect to be paid - I'd just be happy to help.
G
Garrovick
Guest
I say that if she was called up by a authorized fire dept for duty, she should get paid. If she did it on her own, she took annual leave.
While I personally find the employer's actions shameful, they were not morally wrong-- they were morally neutral. However, if they paid for this person to help fight the fires, they would be morally right. They followed their own rules correctly; however, the President or Board or whoever is in authority should have stepped in to make an exception-- that would be their own contribution to fighting those horrible fires.
I can't imagine that such behavior on the part of management is going to be very good for employee morale in the long-run. And low morale leads to people quitting, or turning in a poor performance, coming in late and so on.
They would do themselves a service if they just cut the woman some slack, as she was working in service of her country. They don't have to pay her for her time off, but they shouldn't take away her vacation.
They would do themselves a service if they just cut the woman some slack, as she was working in service of her country. They don't have to pay her for her time off, but they shouldn't take away her vacation.
There was justice, clearly her contractual agreement with the company allowed them to do this, she essentially agreed to it. Simply not being generous is not immoral.
I can see the nursing home giving her a mild slap on the wrist for going off and not doing her job--a talk with a manager, that sort of thing. But I expecting her to take leave time to help save lives in a crisis is wildly distasteful.
Putting the word "morally" into the poll is a way of steering the poll in the direction the original poster would like to see it go, that is the direction she agrees with.
There is nothing moral about this issue.
Person works for company. Person takes off because they are ordered to by an entity with which they have a previous commitment. It doesn't matter what the organization is, nor the reason. The employer has a right to let the employee go.
The employee is lucky that were able to take off and come back to a job. If you are not at work you do not get paid. It's very simple, and there is no morality involved.
There is nothing moral about this issue.
Person works for company. Person takes off because they are ordered to by an entity with which they have a previous commitment. It doesn't matter what the organization is, nor the reason. The employer has a right to let the employee go.
The employee is lucky that were able to take off and come back to a job. If you are not at work you do not get paid. It's very simple, and there is no morality involved.